Remove The Prosecution Rights Of The Rspca

[Bosun11 537]

Done... gladley!!

[neil82 1,080]

done

[bracken boy 584]

Don't want a slagging match here but if they are that bad and prosecuting with no evidence then why are they still going?? There's lots of dozy owners mistreating their animals so they need to be taken to court surely?

[tomburras 2,730]

sighed - says 590 on the email

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

Don't want a slagging match here but if they are that bad and prosecuting with no evidence then why are they still going?? There's lots of dozy owners mistreating their animals so they need to be taken to court surely?

Imagine the scene, someone sees you digging in land (where you have full permission). They don't like you, or they might just disagree with your chosen sport/means of pest control. They call the police and report you for badger baiting.

 

The police arrive in full force. Unluckily for you this police force received its Badgers Act training from the LACS legal team, in partnership with 'Digging Out', the campaign to abolition terrier work. You are ordered to stop digging immediately and arrested on suspicion of interfering with a live badger sette. You are taken off down the station and all your equipment is seized. Any dogs present are seized by the police and handed over to the RSPCA.

 

RSPCA workers wait by the hole to retrieve the terrier to ground once it shows.

 

In the mean time the RSPCA interview you at the police station. They have a policeman in the room, but do all the talking. They say the quickest way out of there is for you to answer their questions. Out of concern for your dogs, you agree. As time is of the essence you don't wait for a duty solicitor. You explain about legal fox control and terrier work. You show them your permission letters. They ask how you can know for sure that there was a fox in the hole, and not a badger. You are unable to convince them you can.

 

You are then bailed from police custody after several bours. You return to the hole, but the terrier and the RSPCA workers have gone.

 

Some 5 1/2 months later you receive a letter informing you of intention to prosecute, along with a court date. This is designed to limit the amount of time your defence can prepare.

 

In court you face the RSPCA A team (expert witnesses, barristers on £1200 an hour, partner level solicitors). On your side you have, the duty solicitor. He doesn't really care about you or your case. He's only here to gain experience before moving on to something higher paid. He was handed your case file about 5mins before the start of the court session.

 

The expert witness testifies that badger hair and latrine holes were found in the area of the hole you were digging. In his opinion, it is an active sette. The onus is now on your to prove that you weren't badger digging.

 

The duty solicitor takes one look at the opposition, and the easily impressed magistrates, who believe that the RSPCA can do know wrong, and advises you to plead guilty. You have little to no chance of successfully defending this case. Every moment in court that passes the RSPCA legal and kennelling expenses mount. If you plead not guilty but ar convicted anyway you may be responsible for all of them. If you own your house a charge may be put against it (the RSPCA can force you to sell it to get them their money).

 

Still think everyone who is prosecuted by the RSPCA deserves it?

[bracken boy 584]

Ok but don't they have to prove there was a badger,, like proof, don't get me wrong they not get the door opened if I now it's them

[johnny 2 367]

Ok but don't they have to prove there was a badger,, like proof, don't get me wrong they not get the door opened if I now it's them

Think its you that may have to prove it wasn't a badger?

[ryaldinhio 4,577]

Ok but don't they have to prove there was a badger,, like proof, don't get me wrong they not get the door opened if I now it's them

I think I agree with this. Within a criminal court the PROSECUTION have to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused is guilty. i.e. you wouldnt have to prove you werent badger baiting you have evidence you were legally hunting fox for the purpose of pest control?

 

A friend of a friend was in the dock for badger baiting but always protested his innocence, solicitor told him to plead guilty for a lesser sentence he refused. it went to crown and he was looking at time. it was a late hearing and went into a second day solicitor told him to spend the evening with his family as it didnt look good for the morning. Case was thrown out due to lack of evidence! If he had taken his own solicitors advice he wouldve been banged up!

[treecreeper 1,136]

Done

[johnny 2 367]

 

Ok but don't they have to prove there was a badger,, like proof, don't get me wrong they not get the door opened if I now it's them

Think its you that may have to prove it wasn't a badger?

mybe wrong on this,had a few drinks.Singhed for my decree absolute aswell as this!

[bedx 51]

done had do click on all partitions and search rspca.

[da slayer 204]

Done '599

[dytkos 17,794]

Waiting for email?

 

Cheers, D.

[dymented 2,220]

You do not have to be guilty off any offence for the charity workers to proceed with a privet prosecution hey will lie , manipulate evidence , intimidate and bully to do there best to egt a conviction as well as keep your animals for a year or two while they do it ( i my self had a terrier box coved in blood which they seized to do forensic test on i told them i used it for storing gutted rabbits in to stop the dog eating them on the way home , In court they claimed it was too expensive to do the tests , after the case failed low and behold the report turns up confirming it was rabbit blood ,why hide that ? because it would not help there case to secure a conviction for animal fighting ) The charity have no complainants or dispensary procedure the police do If there is any case to answer for any cruelty of any sort then the police should proceed not a bias charity who are totally anti ,if you are out hunting you should be charged with a hunting offence not under the AWA what do the charity have to gain massive fines / revenue if i had been convicted of there fabricated charges it would have cost me £160.000 and certainly have been given an animal ban As stated above they have high paid barristers that they used day in day out unless you can get your own specialist solicitor you have little to no chance off convincing the magistrate you are innocent .The rspca are not like what you see on the TV

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

 

Ok but don't they have to prove there was a badger,, like proof, don't get me wrong they not get the door opened if I now it's them

Think its you that may have to prove it wasn't a badger?

Correct. The Badgers Act 1992 makes it an absolute offence, so the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove innocence.

 

 

Its pretty easy for the prosecution expert witnesses to convince magistrates that a hole is a live badger sette. It even more damning when they also claim swabs of your dog came up with badger hairs, and that the scars it carries are consistent with working badger.